Bogley

[marshall]

Jeep hands down! First of all, from a mechanical viewpoint based on personal experience. I have owned five Jeep vehicles, and had "good luck" with all of them. No major issues, only the usual maintenance (brakes, plugs, etc). The Jeep I currently drive to work every day and wheel the most is a 94 Jeep XJ with 285,000 miles on the original 4.0 litre engine and all I have done to it is change the oil every 3000 miles. Say what you want about Jeeps, but with routine maintenance they will run forever.

On the other hand, I have owned 1 Toyota pickup (93), and a 4-Runner (2004) and for the most part, loved them. However, I had to rebuild the engine in my 93 at 97000 miles, it was the four cylinder and needless to say it should have gone much, much longer. In my (former) 2004 runner, I had to dump $1500 into it the week I bought it, in order to try to get it to run right. Sensors, injectors, ignition control modules, etc. LUCKILY, the dealer I bought it from took it back and applied the money I had to spend toward a 2001 Cherokee that my wife currently drives, that hasn't cost me anyting but gas and oil.

So as has been said before, it all comes down to personal experience, I had a bad experience with two seperate Toyotas, and will never own one again, unless it were given to me.

From an off-road viewpoint, living in Moab makes ability a necessity. I am a hard core solid front axle fan, so the FJ Cruiser is dead in the water to me right off the bat. If they were going to attempt a hard-core off roader, they should have taken a hint from the Rubicon (or the FJ-40, 60, or 80 series), and put a solid front axle with Toyota's famous factory locker in it and the rear. Sure you could swap one in yourself, but WHY? The cost of that would put you even further in the hole just to get to the level at which Jeeps roll off the assembly line. The new traction control systems do a great job, but nothing beats two solid axles and selectable lockers IMHO.

[RedRoxx]

I have a good friend who is a mechanic who favors Toyota and has a very capable four runner. I have a Jeep just cause that's what I ended up with. I've had it since 93 and it has gotton me to some awesome destinations, and I've had some four wheel fun with it too---
Mods-
Dana 60 rear with 3.11 gears and Detroit locker
Terra Lo tranfer case
Stock front axle with air locker and larger upgraded outer Ujoints
Custom buggy leaf suspension with full wrap and reverse shackles
Rancho 9000 shocks with in cab adjustments
Catback exhaust system and Borla header
33" Goodrich AT's --previously had the indestructible Goodyear MTR's on there.
Roll Cage

4 wheeling
Rubicon trail a couple of times
Moab--Hell's Revenge and Golden Spike
Johnson Valley--Sledgehammer, Jackhammer and Wrecking Ball
Martinez Mine, Woodpecker
Los Coyotes Indian Res California

Best Th's---on lots of old mining roads in Utah, Cali, Az and New Mexico.

I've broken the main leaf on the springs in the rear several time, knocked a shock mount off, had an engine mount go and put the fan into the radiator, been hung up on rocks, rolled it once, on it's left side once and right side once---I've always been able to drive it home. Say what you want about Jeeps' but my old Jeep just keeps plugging away.

What I like is now it is old and has lots of miles I don't care if I trash the body as long as it keeps running----bushwacking--bring it on!!!

[JP]

I ran Zuks in the past, Toys and now a Jeep. I like them all, they get me to where I want to be, some just a little better. I'm not here to say ones better than the other, just that I like wheeling and when it comes to getting up that obstacle, oh yea, I'm trying it. Rolling over or not, I hate by-passes :haha:

I thought this little segment was on the FJ vs Rubi. I have yet to see a FJ in any real wheeling situations, whether it be in stock condition or modified. I'll take the Rubi in any condition, I've seen them and I know what they're capable of. To me, the FJ, looks like a Tupperware container. That white top looks like it would peel right off and inside would be some nice fresh fruits :mrgreen:

[scoutabout]

Scott Patterson wrote:
The FJ is claimed to be better off-road than the Rubicon, but it would be better to have an unbiased source compare them side by side to see if it's really true. One report says they are equal, but the Rubicon has a slight advantage due to dimensions.

Where did you hear this claim? The j**p might have more mechanical problems and the FJ Cruiser might be a better overall value as a car, but in no way will a FJ Cruiser beat a Rubicon in off-road performance. Having driven both in off-road situations and having seen both in many different off-road circumstances, I can tell you that the j**p wins in off-road performance.

[Sombeech]

scoutabout wrote: j**p

Hey, watch your language.

[REDFOX]

FJ40 Landcruisers have always been built tough for off roading right from the factory. It has taken years for Jeep to realize that they needed to build the Rubicon. One would think that Jeep would have realized the flaws in their line a long time ago. There are catalogs with numerous after market parts specifically for jeeps to make them trail worthy. Finally with the Rubicon one could head for the trails with some confidence with out having to drop thousands of dollars for obvious items such as heavier axles. Having owned 3 FJ40's, I might be a little biased in my preference. Toyota's don't break, they just wear out eventually.

[Rev. Coyote]

I've had numerous Toyotas, including an older FJ-62 and a 4-Runner. The Crusher was tough as nails but slow. The 4-Runner was great, but I didn't have it long.

Recently, I looked at several 80-series Crushers with the DOHC inline-6, and every one I tested had a bad head gasket (evidenced by "milkshake" oil on the cap and dipstick). When Toyota found the HG problem with the 3.0 v-6 (4Runners mostly), they issued a prompt recall. Yet, the Crusher never had the recall and the issue is very well-known. I was shocked to see Yota not stand behind its product, when the design is clearly piss-poor. If I had an 80, I'd dump the stock engine and drop in a Cummins 4BT. But who has that kind of jing?

That said, I like Yotas vs. Jeeps, but I'd have a hard time turning down a Rubicon Unlimted. The FJ Cruisers you either hate or love. I love the looks, and would seriously consider one after a couple production years go past.

Bottom line though is I'm a pickup truck guy. My Dodge diesel gets me anywhere I need to go. As far as the technical off-roading, that's for rich kids and fundies with enough bread to bash up their vehicles.

When the going gets too rough, I park Truckie and put on the boots.

[Scott P]

Quote: Where did you hear this claim?

It's Toyota's claim which is why I put "claimed" and "better" in italics and said it would be better have an unbiased source compare them side by side to see if it's really true.

The test I've seen actually rated them almost equal but said the Rubicon has a slight edge due to dimensions.

Actually I admit I am a little biased towards the Toyota. Not because I've owned a Toyota, but because I have owned a Jeep. The Jeep just let me down too many times, even when fairly new. This one was an 89 Wrangler. I've heard new ones are better, but I'm still afraid to buy one. Back then they only came with a 1 year 12,000 mile warrantee (eek) and sure enough, as soon as the one year was up it was problems galore. I hear newer models are much better.

I have to admit the CJ's have style as do the older FJ40's.

Anyway, it does appear the Rubicon has a slight edge in off road capability when asking any unbiased source. From Karl on Cars (see original link):

The FJ is a screaming bargain. It starts at less than $22,000 for a 2WD automatic, and it tops out at $23,300 for a 4WD auto. If you load it up with luxury items and off-road equipment you might crack $29,000, but even a base 4x4 version will utterly destroy any remotely surmoutable off-road driving surface. It's also better equipped than the other three cars (even before you add options) and, in my not-so-humble opinion, it is by far the best looking and best on-road driving vehicle of the group, too. I'll maybe give the Jeep Rubicon a slight advantage in pure off-road ability, but only because of the Wrangler's tidier dimensions, not because it has superior equipment or any other inherent "capability" advantage. And in terms of everything not related to going off road, the FJ pummels the Wrangler (BTW, I'm a big Jeep Wrangler fan, but I'm not going to let that fact warp reality).

While the FJ is no BMW 7 Series it's a far more livable daily driver than anything remotely this off-road capable without going up to a Land Cruiser or LR3 (and it probably still has at least a slight off-road advantage over those models). So as I said in my Full Test story a few weeks ago, if you never go off road you'll like it, and if you always go off road you'll LOVE it.

Later Karl when questioned goes on to say:

Apparently, as you noted in my own quote, admitting the Rubicon is more capable off road isn't good enough. I have to say it's waaaay more capable, or something of that nature. Well, I won't, because I don't think it is. It has a shorter wheelbase and shorter overhangs, so it will likely not scrape in EXTREME off-road situations where the FJ will...slightly scrape. But it's not like one will skate over the Rubicon Trail while the other crashes and bangs and eventually brakes. It's going to be very close either way.

Let's look at some specs:

Ground clearance is close (10.3 Rubicon/9.6 FJ), but Water Fording isn't (15 inches Rubicon/27.5 inches FJ). Neither is horsepower (190 Rubicon/239 FJ). Or torque (235 Rubicon/278 FJ). Tire Height is close (31 inches Rubicon/32 inches FJ) as is Breakover angle (25.4 Rubicon/27.4 FJ)

Of course I know first hand that the FJ has exceptional off road abilitiy (probably better than almost any 4x4 except a Rubicon), plus better interior space, a quieter cabin at all speeds, better on-road steering feel, higher towing capacity (5,000lbs vs 2,000lbs) and a capable sound system (even the base audio system as auxiliary input for MP3s). Oh, and it costs $6,000 less than a Rubicon.

But, for the .1 percent of the population that ACTUALLY goes extreme off roading all the time (and not the other 20 percent that wants to act like they do), the Rubicon is better...somewhat.

Either way my original statements stand: The FJ is a screaming bargain; it's better equipped than the competition; in terms of everything not related to going off road, the FJ pummels the Wrangler

Trust me, I R*E*A*L*L*Y drove it off road, and it R*E*A*L*L*Y kicked ass. The photos in our road test don't show it because those were taken on our own drive in Hungry Valley, California. But there was a very extreme trail up north of Ojai, California that I drove during the press event (before I took the drive-away model for our own testing) and we put the FJ through very extreme stuff. The press kit has all sorts of crazy shots that show the level of wheel articulation. If you want to see them go to this site and click on the" FJ Bulletin" link and then the "Rubicon Trail" link and then the "photos" link: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/fjcruiser.html

[UtahFire]

I think the biggest weakness with the FJ on a "hard core" trail is going to be the IFS. No question IFS provides for better on road ride and handling. However, my experience wheeling with IFS equipped vehicles like the Hummer H2 is that the don't hold up in extreme conditions. What has Toyota done differently with their IFS which would make it as durable as a solid axle?

[JP]

UtahFire wrote: What has Toyota done differently with their IFS which would make it as durable as a solid axle?
It can't be done :haha:

[UtahFire]

JP wrote: UtahFire wrote: What has Toyota done differently with their IFS which would make it as durable as a solid axle?
It can't be done :haha:

I know there are some solid axle swaps available. But they are usually pretty expensive. The original question was FJ vs. Rubicon (stock?). Now if your talking about which vehicle is best on the trail with major modifications. I have to believe the Rubicon would have a significant advantage in the modification arena.

[JP]

UtahFire wrote: The original question was FJ vs. Rubicon (stock?). Now if your talking about which vehicle is best on the trail with major modifications. I have to believe the Rubicon would have a significant advantage in the modification arena.
I'll take the Rubi stock as well :lol8: Swapping out the IFS isn't that much of a major modification as well as swapping out say the Dana 30 and 35. The IFS just has more cutting and welding, but well worth it in the end.